JINDAL RECTIFIERS Vs. JINDAL POWER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved of order dated 29.08.2019, whereby its application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of trademark, dilution of goodwill, unfair competition and rendition of accounts of profits/damages, against the respondents-defendants no.1 and 2, restraining them from using any trademark deceptively similar to the registered trademark of plaintiff or any other mark/name having 'M/s. Jindal' domain name and/or in any manner whatsoever in respect of any infringement or passing of goods of defendants as goods of the plaintiff. The suit was initially filed against the three defendants. One of the defendants i.e. defendant no.3 Satish Kumar, Proprietor of 'Jindal Transformer Industries' appeared and suffered a statement that he had surrendered his GST number before the Goods and Services Department, which was in the name of M/s. Jindal Transformer Industries. He further stated that he would not use the name of 'M/s. Jindal Transformer Industries' or 'M/s Jindal' for the purpose of his business. In this view of the matter, defendant was given up from the array of parties.

(3.) Appellant-Plaintiff claimed to be a proprietorship concern, engaged in the business of manufacturing of power control devices since 1983, with sales, services representatives/offices all over India by the name and style of 'Jindal Rectifiers'. Appellant-plaintiff got the trade mark registered bearing no.949619 in the year 2007 in class 9 in respect of Industrial Voltage Stabilizers, Silicon Rectifiers, Hydrogenation Rectifiers, Transformers, parts and Fittings thereof (Annexure P-2). It is further stated that defendant no.2 - Surender Kundu was an ex-employee of the plaintiff and worked with plaintiff as an electrician for six years since 01.06.2012 to 18.07.2017 and was closely associated with the affairs of the plaintiff. Defendant/respondent no.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1, which is sole proprietorship concern. Respondent no.2 though having no relation whatsoever with the petitioner-firm or with the name of 'Jindal' started his own proprietorship firm under the name and style of 'M/s. Jindal Powers' dealing in manufacturing of power control devices and started operating from the same city as that of petitioner i.e. Faridabad. It is further alleged that by using the aforesaid name, respondent started targeting the same customers while giving a false and deceptive impression of being associated with the petitioner-firm. It is further stated that trade name 'Jindal' has become a mark of identification of the products itself. The appellant has other sister concern/associate firms namely 'Jindal Electricals' and 'Jindal Electric and Machinery Corporation' with its proprietor Mr. Bharti Bhushan Jindal. Respondents, it is averred, started targeting the same customers giving a false and deceptive impression of being associated with the petitioner-firm. Deception on the part of the respondents, it is pleaded, is causing loss of work and tarnishing goodwill of the appellant-plaintiff which is primarily associated with the said trademark. When the respondents did not refrain from their illegal activities it is stated the suit was filed and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed along with the suit claiming a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant besides an irreparable loss being caused to it, in case, respondents are not restrained from manufacturing and selling the power control devices identical to the power control devices of the appellants under the name and style of 'M/s Jindal Powers'.